Hawt 2nd Amendment Incorporated by the Supreme Court

fly said:
While trolling, yes, I'm also kinda serious. I don't know enough about the shit to know. Everyone interprets the 2nd amendment differently. I wanna know what YOU think? Where is the line? Destructive devices doesn't seem to make enough of a demark line...
Click to expand...

Anything with the ability to destroy a bus full of nuns in one shot should be regulated somehow. Everything else is fair game.


You can put that shit in the constitution if you want. Look at how eloquently I put that. LOOK!
 
shortguyrage said:
I have one.
in my pants.

Seriously, who thought that would be a good idea?
Click to expand...

The guy that successfully made it and that it worked, and on a surprisingly small budget. Had he had a larger budget, it would be awesome. Also if he didn't try and build it for Iraq from designs while working for the US.
 
dbzeag said:
The guy that successfully made it and that it worked, and on a surprisingly small budget. Had he had a larger budget, it would be awesome. Also if he didn't try and build it for Iraq from designs while working for the US.
Click to expand...

It's funny when smart-type people, with degrees from actual colleges and maybe a pocket protector and glasses, come up with stupid shit and are heralded as a genius.
 
Ol' Diamondback Sturgeon said:
Yes, it really is..

Crime in the US is going down, while crime in the UK and Australia is going up.
Click to expand...

I haven't even looked at the stats but that's a dumb statement for 2 reasons.

1). What do you meant by "crime" ? I assume since we're talking about gun ownership that you mean serious crimes i.e. murder/rape/GBH and that somehow you think more people owning guns make these less likely? Because if crime overall or petty crime is falling, then that's really irrelevant.

2). US crime was probably at a much higher level to begin with, so to be honest I don't think it's impressive that it falls from say 1000 to 900 murders a year and the UK and Australia rise from 4 to 5. I'm making figures up here but you get my point.

Anyway I know that the US is a much more violent society than the UK, and also that a ban on handguns has made the UK a much safer society. Unfortunately given that some people may still own guns for recreational/hunting use here and keep these in their houses, means that events like the recent Cumbria massacre can still occur.

As you can tell I'm very anti-the right to bear arms, as this is a forum filled with Yanks I'm sure this will be deeply unpopular but whatevs. Seems so illogical to me that allowing everyone to own a deadly weapon is gonna make violent crime fall...
 
I understand where you're coming from Phoenix. Most of us live lives that don't require firearm ownership.

Most Americans will argue on the principle of the matter. We've been paranoid and armed since 1620.
 
As previous people have stated, guns aren't just to defend our homes and lives from other people but from the government. What happens if the government takes all our weapons away, then decides they want to throw out the current system and change it as they please. Nothing, cause we have no means to do anything about it. We already had to overthrow the government once and set up a new one to get this country to where we want it, and the chance of that needing to happen again seems likely, so we'll need our guns.
 
kiwi said:
As previous people have stated, guns aren't just to defend our homes and lives from other people but from the government. What happens if the government takes all our weapons away, then decides they want to throw out the current system and change it as they please. Nothing, cause we have no means to do anything about it. We already had to overthrow the government once and set up a new one to get this country to where we want it, and the chance of that needing to happen again seems likely, so we'll need our guns.
Click to expand...

Like I said. Paranoid and armed since 1620.

It's a comfort blanket, yo. Your small arsenal probably isn't worth dick against the U.S. military or even rookie PD officers.
 
Casper said:
Like I said. Paranoid and armed since 1620.

It's a comfort blanket, yo. Your small arsenal probably isn't worth dick against the U.S. military or even rookie PD officers.
Click to expand...

So because the bully is bigger and badder we should just do everything he says? Against the military you're right. However, I'm sure some arsenals rival what rookie PD officers have. Hell even veterans. Now against SWAT, that's a different matter.
 
Casper said:
No. Even then.

Who would you put your money on? LAPD or a dozen homeboys toting gats.
Click to expand...

Considering that I could name several people off hand that could outshoot most of the LAPD I'd side (figuratively and literally) with the citizens.
 
You're also completely ignoring the fact that this country was founded by a citizen's army that took their land from a much better equipped and better organized military.
 
kiwi said:
As previous people have stated, guns aren't just to defend our homes and lives from other people but from the government. What happens if the government takes all our weapons away, then decides they want to throw out the current system and change it as they please. Nothing, cause we have no means to do anything about it. We already had to overthrow the government once and set up a new one to get this country to where we want it, and the chance of that needing to happen again seems likely, so we'll need our guns.
Click to expand...

I could also build an ark in downtown atlanta just in case there's a flood of biblical proportions but the likelihood of that happening is just as remote
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back